Benchmark: RegEx.test vs Array.includes -- 3 options

Script Preparation code:

var appState = "active";
var regex = /inactive|background|other/;
var arr = ['inactive', 'background', 'other'];

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(appState);
Array.includes
arr.includes(appState);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	54759412.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes	65013564.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using a regular expression (`regex.test`) versus an array method (`arr.includes`).

**Test Case 1: RegEx.test**

* The script preparation code creates a variable `appState` with value `"active"`.
* A regular expression `regex` is defined with three alternatives: `/inactive|background|other/`.
* The benchmark definition uses the `regex.test` method to check if `appState` matches any of the alternatives.

**Test Case 2: Array.includes**

* The script preparation code creates an array `arr` with values `['inactive', 'background', 'other']`.
* The benchmark definition uses the `includes` method on the `arr` array to check if `appState` is present in it.

**Comparison of Options**

1. **Regex.test vs Array.includes**
	* **Pros (RegEx.test)**: Can be more efficient for certain use cases, as it only requires a single pass through the regex pattern.
	* **Cons**: May be slower for large datasets or complex patterns due to the overhead of compiling and executing a regex pattern.
	* **Pros (Array.includes)**: Typically faster and more efficient for arrays, especially when dealing with large datasets.
	* **Cons**: Requires creating an array of alternatives, which can add memory overhead.
2. **Regex.test**
	* This option is not directly comparable to `Array.includes`, as it's a general-purpose regex testing method.

**Library Usage**

There is no library explicitly used in the provided benchmark code. However, some libraries might be included implicitly due to the use of the `includes` method on an array. In modern JavaScript environments, the built-in `Array.prototype.includes()` method is typically used for this purpose.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark does not appear to utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard language constructs (e.g., variables, functions, loops). However, it's worth noting that the use of regex patterns can be sensitive to various factors like character encoding, locale settings, and Unicode normalization rules, which might affect performance in specific scenarios.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to `regex.test` and `Array.includes`, other approaches might be used to compare the performance of these two methods:

* Using a library like Lodash's `filter()` method or a custom implementation for array comparisons.
* Employing more advanced regex techniques, such as lookaheads or capturing groups, which can affect performance.
* Utilizing specialized libraries or tools optimized for specific tasks, like regular expression processing.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs Array.includes -- 3 options (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs Array.includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

Array.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):